Mitt Romney Supports “Life Begins At Conception” Amendment

beerftw said:

the only thing that will hurt romney is his flip flopping,hes almost at the point where no one believes what he says.

hes like the boy who cried wolf,except with flip flops.

Click to expand...

all politicians pander....until elected..

iguanaman said:

Could supporting the banning of contraception hurt Romney? That's a YES for sure.
He's going to lose in a landslide now.

Click to expand...

who is calling for a ban on contraception?

Mitt opening his mouth and speaking, on almost anything, hurts him in November. To win, Mitt just needs to smile and wave (a lot) and allow is 3rd party PACs take the election into the gutter.

ksu_aviator said:

I disagree. As the Constitution and subsequent amendments were crafted based on the principles set forth in the DoI, it is prudent to use the DoI as a document to establish intent. And that argument is backed by the fact that Thomas Jefferson is widely credited for the drafting of both the Constitution and the DoI (prior to being amended by the Constitutional Congress). Further, the DoI lays out the foundation for the blended democratic, republic that would become the United States of America. If you read the DoI carefully you will find the philosophical basis for coequal branches of government, a difficult amendment process and the bill of rights.

Click to expand...

No one is disagreeing with you here. But you are arguing your point by redefining the language in the DoI to fit modern biological paradigms.

As such, their knowledge of the process of impregnation is not relevant. I think they knew the basics. Peg A into Slot B = baby maybe. But, did they know how sperm and eggs combined? Did they even know women had eggs? It doesn't matter. They knew that the only difference between a fetus and a baby was its location.

Click to expand...

The only difference between an embryo and a sperm and an egg are their locations. :roll:

Their understanding of the process is very relevant, because you are ascribing a very technical meaning to a term, and when that term was penned, the authors had no understanding of that technical meaning.

If you want to get really technical, life is never created. It is simply a continuation from earlier life. Sperm and Egg cells are simply divisions of existing cells in the body. These cells combine, and then begin dividing once again. So, very literally, every cell in your offspring's body can trace itself back to you, and you can trace back to your parents, etc. These chains are completely unbroken. New life is never created.

ksu_aviator said:

What extreme position? Is it extreme to not allow the systematic murder of children?

Click to expand...

Children! :rofl

Oh, how cuuuuute!!

It will hurt Romney with women voters more than men. If Obama points out what Romney's stance would do to birth control and plays this as an attack on women's rights it can do serious damage to Romney. All this does for Romney is add to the fervor of the right wing religious votes and he already has most of that vote anyway. It will not gain him one electoral vote in November.

ksu_aviator said:

What extreme position? Is it extreme to not allow the systematic murder of children?

Click to expand...

So, you think a woman taking most forms of birth control "systematic murder of children?" Most end the pregnancy after fertilization before the blastocyst attaches to the uterus wall.

JayDubya said:

Technically, we're talking about a Constitutional amendment here, so what the Supreme Court has to say would mean jack and sh*t; they'd be obliged to uphold and defend any ratified amendment.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because we know he can get a Constitutional amendment through. If NOW can't do it, neither can Romney. It's a talking point, nothing more.

JayDubya said:

Technically, we're talking about a Constitutional amendment here, so what the Supreme Court has to say would mean jack and sh*t; they'd be obliged to uphold and defend any ratified amendment.

Click to expand...

....until it is challenged.....and found to be in violation of Roe.

Mitt Romney Supports “Life Begins At Conception” Amendment

That's what America needs - yet another multimillionaire conservative businessman in a grey suit deciding when "life begins!"

AdamT said:

The conservative defense of Mitt Romney: sure, he takes some offensively extreme positions, but don't worry about it because he's a liar and/or he's so ineffective he could never get any of that stuff enacted. :thumbs:

Click to expand...

what? ... are you talking about Obama's voting record of supporting late term abortion?...thats pretty "offensive"... I dont see whats "offensive" about Romneys postion?

Travis007 said:

what? ... are you talking about Obama's voting record of supporting late term abortion?...thats pretty "offensive"... I dont see whats "offensive" about Romneys postion?

Click to expand...

Baloney. Obama never supported late term abortions unless it was to save the life of the mother.

Moot said:

Baloney. Obama never supported late term abortions unless it was to save the life of the mother.

Click to expand...

wow.. youre joking right?

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.


Obama voted against this ^


and

http://www.bornalivetruth.org/timeline.php

Its all just words of a red flag issue. Every election.

Life does begin at conception... does it not? That embryo is the start of a human life, but as it stands it is a living organism...

It's also a living organism that would be counted as a child should someone harm its host... Such as a drunk driver, who would be charged with 2 counts of vehicular manslaughter of both mother and child, if they were in a car crash with that host that cost the life of the host (even if the drunk driver did not cause the accident, since by legal BAC they can be automatically charged as at fault)...

If legal precedent in this country establishes that as a child in some regards, how can it back the taking of that life in other regards?

If these women are so worried about having a "choice"... they can chose whether to engage in sexual activity or not... when you engage in sexual activity, using reproductive organs, the potential exists that there will be human reproduction... Yes there are forms of birth control, but the only 100% effective method is abstinence... So by engaging in sexual activity, you must be willing to accept the risk that a life will be created, and must be ready to deal with that...

Dealing with that should not count taking the life which was created...

I understand in cases where the sexual activity was not a willing engagement, that the person who was impregnated against their will should not have to bear the offspring of their opressor... or, in the event where the life that's being created threatens the life of the host, whereby the probability of survival is more on the side of the host without the embryo rather than the embryo without its host, that there could be the necessary evil of sparing a life by taking another... which is easily covered under any legal definition of self defense...

However, by legal standards in the United States, the taking of a life without reason ought to be illegal... and "because I want to" doesn't count as a reason... whether a woman feels that way or not...

Now, I understand that's somewhat of an unpopular stance, since far more women vote than embryos... but, there are also far more parents who will be voting that couldnt see the taking of a child as beneficial, and who are absolutely thrilled to death that they went through with the birth of their child, whether their relationship worked out or not... and as one such parent, I can say that the birth of my children has been the greatest accomplishment I can and will have ever done in life... and the fact that they now have the opportunity to make their way in life, and they have the choice to live their life makes me guilt free in that regards...

Travis007 said:

wow.. youre joking right?

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.


Obama voted against this ^


and

Born Alive Truth

Click to expand...

Where's the "to save the life of the mother" clause? The bill above seeks to punish the doctor for performing a procedure that could save a woman's life, not ban abortion.

Gimmesometruth said:

....until it is challenged.....and found to be in violation of Roe.

Click to expand...

Do you not understand what a constitutional amendment is?

Travis007 said:

wow.. youre joking right?

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.


Obama voted against this ^

Click to expand...

BS, Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, so it is impossible to vote against a 2003 Bill.

and

Born Alive Truth

Click to expand...

Here is the reason he voted "No" when he was a member of the Illinois Senate:

Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he’s conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they’re "lying."

At issue is Obama’s opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

Click to expand...

FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

Gimmesometruth said:

....until it is challenged.....and found to be in violation of Roe.

Click to expand...

It wouldnt be in violation of "Roe", since "Roe" isn't a law... (and is probably the worst legal decision in American history...)

It would be challenged on the merits of its abidence with the constitution, not case law... (and with the court 5-4 on the issue, even before a romney appointee... we can guess how that would go...)

IndepCentristMA said:

It wouldnt be in violation of "Roe", since "Roe" isn't a law... (and is probably the worst legal decision in American history...)

It would be challenged on the merits of its abidence with the constitution, not case law... (and with the court 5-4 on the issue, even before a romney appointee... we can guess how that would go...)

Click to expand...

So you don't know what case law is....

AdamT said:

So you don't know what case law is....

Click to expand...

Case law is irrelevant... the SJC can decide on whatever their interpretation of the constitution is... whether it disagrees with prior decisions or not...

hence why you have previous SJC decisions overturned by later SJC panels...

those are examples of case law that was overriden, without needing to do anything other than just make your decision on the very case being heard before you...

I support that and I certainly hope it gets done. However, I'm not to optimistic about it happening. Candidates say this kind of stuff to rally their base, I think Obama's SSM stuff is similar.

IndepCentristMA said:

Case law is irrelevant... the SJC can decide on whatever their interpretation of the constitution is... whether it disagrees with prior decisions or not...

hence why you have previous SJC decisions overturned by later SJC panels...

those are examples of case law that was overriden, without needing to do anything other than just make your decision on the very case being heard before you...

Click to expand...

And you don't know that state courts can't overrule the Supreme Court on matters of constitutional law...?

jgarden47 said:

Mitt Romney Supports “Life Begins At Conception” Amendment

That's what America needs - yet another multimillionaire conservative businessman in a grey suit deciding when "life begins!"

Click to expand...

What would you call a zygote? An inanimate object?

noun
1.
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2.
the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
3.
the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.
4.
a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life.
5.
the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that.

Life | Define Life at Dictionary.com